Comparative effects of aerobic training modalities with and without blood flow restriction on maximal and peak oxygen uptake in adults: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Hangxin Chen, Feng Xu, Ziqi Fan, Yangyang Liu, Dongxu Gao

Abstract readReview

In one paragraph

Review in Journal of exercise science and fitness, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Hangxin ChenSchool of Physical Education, Shanghai University of Sport, Shanghai, 200438, China.

Feng XuPhysical Education Department, Shanghai Maritime University, Shanghai, 201306, China.

Ziqi FanSchool of Physical Education, Shanghai University of Sport, Shanghai, 200438, China.

Yangyang LiuSchool of Humanities and Social Sciences, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, 710049, China.

Dongxu GaoDivision of Sports Science and Physical Education, Tsinghua University, Beijing, 100084, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Maximal oxygen uptake (VO Methods: Six databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and SPORTDiscus) were searched through January 21, 2026 for randomized controlled trials involving adults and reporting VO Results: Thirty-four studies including 1042 participants were included. Overall, high-intensity interval training combined with BFR (HIIT + BFR), low-intensity continuous training combined with BFR (LICT + BFR), and moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) ranked highest. Subgroup analyses showed that HIIT + BFR ranked highest in 4-6-week interventions, trained participants, and running-based protocols. LICT + BFR ranked highest in untrained participants, walking-based protocols, and low-to-moderate-intensity exercise. MICT ranked highest in 8-12-week interventions, male participants, cycling-based protocols, and trained participants. Low-intensity interval training alone showed a consistently low ranking. Conclusion: At the group level, BFR combined with AE may improve VO

Indexed as

Aerobic exerciseBlood flow restriction trainingMaximal oxygen uptakeNetwork meta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID42733676

DOI10.1016/j.jesf.2026.200519

PMCPMC13571428

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.